UKC

What are peoples opinions of it? Personally although I think the film is produced in a deliberately provocative way the points it makes are stated by the quran and therefore I can't really see why Muslims have the right to have such a hissy fit about it.

In reply to Quarryboy:

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out to them that Charlie Hebdo's favourite target is the pope, who is denigrated in it regularly in a crude fashion yet not even catholics have hit the streets and threatened mayhem. There have been a few catholic extremist actions against films, the Italian one about Christ a few years ago, one cinema had a petrol bomb thrown in it, but this was a one off action by extreme right fanatics, no church people came out accusing the producer of "provocation", and as far as I can remember they have always just ignored the cartoons.

But when it's Momo, it's all made up to be a big deal, even by muslim officials, non-muslims too, like various Jewish pressure groups, ecologists and various political movements, from right to extreme left - even a trotskyist mini-group has felt the need to call for a limitation of Charlie Hebdo's freedom to publish!

It all shows how thin the veneer of civilisation is and just how important it is to defend basic freedoms like freedom of the press.

In reply to Quarryboy: Until my street is full of rioting Muslims I shall just tutt and move on. It's all so predictable, it's a non story as far as i'm concerned

Like reading the headline today "Greece has funding issues"...that's a "no sh1t Sherlock" story that's not worth continuing with. But not as good as my favourite all time classic "Chaos engulfs Arafat funeral" headline. They could have had that one written up and in the bag a week before he bought the farm.

In reply to Quarryboy: bluddy gud innit

In reply to Quarryboy:

from what i have heard about it i think "points it makes are stated by the quran" is somewhat inaccurate.

In reply to Quarryboy:

It concerns me that the group consciousness of many muslims is sufficient such that we can have a stupidly hyperbolous reaction, to a film made in America, all across the world, including now here in Scotland. Power and the potential for violence without the international boundaries.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I am forced to agree with you - will you kindly stop saying so many sensible things!

Not living in Britain, you are probably not aware of the level of timid, drivelling self-abasement that is going on in UK media, particularly of course, the BBC. No reference to Mohammed is ever given without the sycophantic prefix "the Prophet". For the sake of the non-existent God, he is not a prophet, only some deluded fanatics think that, rather a seventh century desert warlord who personally ordered massacres of surrendered prisoners, not to mention having sex with a nine year old child. Why on earth should he not be ridiculed or mocked, just because of the voices in his head? What is so special about religion as a set of ideas that it cannot be subject to the same scrutiny as any other idea set, plenty of which get some very blunt comments made about them? If there really were a God, would he need human protection?

If people are so pathetic that they cannot defend free-speech against this sort of violence and intimidation, then they do not deserve it and we might as well all go back to the middle ages, shroud women in burkas and let universal night fall.

None of which is to say that the original film makers were not intending to stir up mischief or mayhem, they were of course. But how feeble and insecure are moslems to so predictably rise to the bait and to allow themselves to be so easily manipulated by their enemies.

In reply to Jimbo W:
Not only that but a crap film made on next to no budget that is so far from mainstream cinema it would need binoculars to see it.
Mind you I also think that the film is nothing more than a focus for a more general grievance against the West and America in particular that has been growing fuelled by both sides over a number of years. For the West the backlash against Islam began with the Salman Rushdie affair and for the Middle East the backlash against the West started with the deposing of the Shah. Though that is a very simple interpretation of it

In reply to Simon4:

Fixed.

In reply to Simon4:


Umm, the fact that its followers will respond violently and want to kill you?

(And before Christians get cocky on this point, they would have and did do the same when they were powerful enough to do so in this country.)

In reply to Coel Hellier:


One really does have to wonder about your obsession!!
Anyway, I don't think its not about power per se, its about the character of the theology, and the religion it produces. A better correlation would be to look at the rise of the aspects of christianity which you particularly object to, such as creationism, phenomena arising secondary to a deliberately fundamental (see christian fundamentalism) attitude to Christian theology since the 1920s.

In reply to Simon4:

Well, if you are Muslim, he is the prophet. I don't believe Jesus was the messiah but I don't object to him being called Jesus Christ. If you called him General Muhammad or Dr. Muhammad or Lord Muhammad it wouldn't make much sense. And considering the number of Muslims called Mohammed (Egyptian president for example), at least we know who is being talked about. Secondly, it's simply not true that 'no reference to Mohammed is ever given without the sycophantic prefix "the Prophet"'. You hear it said all the time on the radio, and its written that way too sometimes - this weeks lead article in the Economist for example.

But hey! If you're really that full of pumped up outrage over something else, why not mimic the Egyptian knuckle draggers and go and chuck a brick through some suitably unsuitable business's window?

If anyone can feel the need to riot over a film, they are a massive prick. If someone made a film taking the piss out of trad climbing and saying how good sport climbing is...sure I'd be angry. But I'm not going to dynamite cheddar gorge. 99% of people kicking up a fuss couldn't give a shit about why they are annoyed, its just something to do. Tw*ts.

In reply to Jimbo W:


Oh, for <ironically> god's sake, you can get off your high horse too. It's about politics and angry people who feel they've been shat on for 40 years by their own governments, by the US, by "the West", by "the Jews", by someone else, and they're really pissed off and want to burn some stuff to show it.

Is it the "character of the theology" that has lead petrol bombs and bricks flying in North Belfast? Or to the inter-trade union violence and savage killings by the police in South Africa over the last few weeks too?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Can you ever post anything without having a go at Christians? Obsessive or what? No? Well then just very predictable.

In reply to Christheclimber:

Maybe it was for balance.

In reply to TobyA:


There's no such thing as politics, its an artificial construct to understand human behaviour at a level other than the real basal aspect of human motivations and reasons. Only someone who worships politics as a thing in itself could believe such a puerile superficiality.


Ah... I see, you're also one of those people that think that any form a conflict or disagreement is the inevitable consequence of the character of humanity: tribalism, and never anything to do with the reasons stated for differences. Oh well, it must be a pretty nihilistic existence for you!

In reply to Jimbo W:


I await your DNA based explanation for why some Libyans fired RPGs at the Benghazi consulated one night, whilst the next day other Libyans held a vigil/protest in Chris Steven's honour with interest then.


Not really sure what worshiping politics would entail. Do we worship the politicians or the political science professors? I've met some of both who would like it to be them.


Not really sure why those two things would be considered mutually exclusive anyway?


Oh it is, but I suppose that means I can crack open that second beer once I've finished this nice cup of tea.

In reply to Christheclimber:

Well you would say that, wouldn't you?

Frankly calling yourself a "climber" is a bit much too, what achievement is it for someone who can walk on water to "climb" a cliff? All the efforts, runners, rope and so on are just window dressing for you as you could just float up if you wanted. If you were anything but a spoilt daddy's boy you'd be trying something that was a real challenge like wrestling the devil or taking on the infidel hordes.

In reply to TobyA:

Goodness! Your RHPP* rate is at a record level on this thread! Congratulations!

* Red Herrings Per Post.

In reply to Quarryboy:
Looking forward to the film and hope it's not a turkey....

In reply to Quarryboy: We have given a medieval religion credence and authority, due to the tendency of its followers to act out violently and without rational thought, and then we wonder why we're all having to put up with the sh!te situations it engenders.

More fool us.

If we treated the Muslim religion with the contempt most of us hold for all other organised religion, and slammed down any rioters with the full force of the law that any other protest would get, and stopped treating Muslim leaders as having respect due to their beliefs, then we may get somewhere.

In reply to stroppygob:

What rioters? There have been no riots in the UK or anywhere else in Europe as far as I've seen. And how is "slamming" the rioters going in Pakistan? 19 dead now. I'm sure that will cure religious extremism in that country.

BTW, I live in another country and you might be relieved to know that not all people here watch reports of the EDL rioting on TV and presume those thousands of people equals all British people. I guess because they're not that thick.

In reply to Stanners:

Hmmm shame, must come up with a plan B.

In reply to TobyA: EDL demos aren't really representative of rioting in the UK. You're not thick enough to think that

Unless there's a particular reason you mentioned them...

In reply to JoshOvki:
haaha, Something slightly more severe is needed I think

In reply to Steve John B:


Of course there is a reason I mentioned them, I thought that would be clear but if not, here we go.

In all these "outrage" events a few thousand people go out and cause havoc. For example in Cairo it was the salafi parties who are trying to show themselves to be the true defenders of Islam against the 'sell out' Ikhwan who now form the government. Also present were Ultras from the big Cairo clubs who have been threatening to take on the police since the Port Said Massacre earlier in the year. In Benghazi the protests were smaller and attack that actually killed the Ambassador and others appears to have been a pretty well coordinated small group military assault - and it was some of the protesters who then went into the building and tried to save the occupants.

But, hey, none of that really matters when Newsweek can slap "Muslim rage!" on its front cover and people thousands of miles away in the west can forget the drone strikes, and forget the years of support from Western countries for autocratic dictators, and forget the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the torture chambers, and the rampant theft of wealth of most ME countries by corrupt leaders etc etc. and instead speculate on the "character of the theology" as an explanation for rioting thugs and extremists, as if the modern form of prayer in you local parish church on Sunday morning would explain EDL mobs bricking the windows of Asian owned businesses in Luton.

In reply to Quarryboy:
This to me is a none event. Obviously the episode at the American embassy is not good, but so isn't the accidental bombing of women and children in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago (think that received about 1 minute air play when I heard it on the radio)

I think the point what seems missing in the posts and also discussions I've had with mates, is that people fall to easily in making generalised statements. To be taken seriously people need to make the distinction between "Muslims" or "they" and the loonies or disenfranchised youth that seems to make up much of the violent protest seen on our screens.

Early estimates state that of the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world, only 0.001 and 0.007% took part in the protests, which is a tiny fraction of those who took part in the Arab spring.

It makes great "news" for our media, with images that conveniently and easily deflects "the angry mob" (kaiser chiefs quote!) rancour away from the most pressing story of recent time, that is the corrupt and continuing corrupt financial/political system we in the west currently take part in.

In reply to TobyA:

You're not making much sense. You also seem to be speculating as to my opinions. Hey ho.

In reply to Steve John B: I don't know what your opinions are, but I was trying to answer your question.

I do take your point that EDL protests that have led to violence aren't really representative of British riots, but then it's such a small sample size that I'm not sure any riot is representative of UK riots. Perhaps just in terms of regularity, NI marching season riots or football hooliganism would be. But then, the riots outside the US Embassy in Cairo aren't representative of riots in Cairo, let alone for the behaivour and beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims or whatever it is - but they've been taken for that in the last week haven't they? Just see various comments on this thread.

In reply to Quarryboy:
Here's an interesting (and rather more optimistic) slant on things:
http://en.avaaz.org/783/muslim-rage-protests-newsweek-salafists?utm_source=...

In reply to TobyA:


Rather, the generalisations seem to be owned by you in assuming a Newsweek type headline is indicative of the opinion of the western world. The hypocrisy is stunning, you offer a more scrutinised view of the riot phenomenon, while taking utter liberties in generalising about the nature of the responses to it.

In reply to Quarryboy: I just really dislike muslims. Top of my list of dislikes really apart from butter beans which are possibly more horrible.

I like the 21st century and would much rather live in this age as opposed to the dark ones, which they still appear to inhabit.


Mind you
, if I ever start my own cult I'll remember to include stiff penalties for people questioning me, ridiculing me, making any kind of image of me or generally backchatting. Religion eh. You couldn't make it up. Oh wait, they did.

In reply to TobyA:
>

Yes, it's nice to see that the ordinary people of Benghazi have shown the nutters what they think of them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785

I wonder if their forthright message to the extremists is a result of a realisation from the Arab spring that the ordinary man and woman in the street can change things if they are determined to do so.

In reply to stroppygob:

Yes, those bloody Muslims. They're all out there rioting about the Islam film aren't they.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/megan.reif/arab_uprisings_vs._anti-film_riots&am...

...of most interest is the "% of Muslim population anti-film crowd" column, but if you can bring yourself to read the preceding paragraphs they may be of interest.

In reply to TobyA:

Maybe in Finland there aren't many muslims but in France where there are several million, it's said to be the second religion in the country, there has been fairly extensive trouble, quite a few arrests especially last weekend. This weekend all requests for permission to organise demonstrations have been refused by the Prefects but we'll see how it goes. But really I don't think this is the main problem... which is, in my opinion, the reaction of many muslims, the various leaders, the imam of the Paris mosque, and just about all those interviewed on the telly, radio and in the press which is that these cartoons are a "provocation", that such things shouldn't be allowed and such like. They mostly call for "restraint" and big heartedly say they will just treat this sort of thing with the disdain it deserves.

Obviously such expressions of sentiment when they filter down to the "uncontrolled elements" of society may lead to "excesses" but they have their preemptive cop out. This double language allows them to make the message clear - to criticize islam, Mohamed or any similar beliefs is unacceptable but they are going to be big about it and not reply. So basically they don't agree with the basic notion of freedom of speech but don't feel strong enough, for the moment, to take it any further.

You may be comfortable with this (are you?) but I'm not as it is a permanent divisive stress in society which will lead to explosions one day... for information the cartoons in Charlie Hebdo weren't just published out of the blue, they were a critical reaction to way muslims all over the word went through their shock horror routine over the US film clip a few days before. This is often "forgotten" even by non muslim journalists or commentators when they criticize the magazine for publishing the cartoons, which to any objective person are fair comment about the over reaction to a rather crummy and totally minor film, I don't think it even exists in a final version.

In reply to Removed User:


"ordinary people of Benghazi" eh? That remains to be confirmed!


Reading your article, it states that the reaction was organised by "Police and protesters" - which would make sense as it's hard to imagine armed militias backing down before unarmed civilian "protesters". You optimism may also take a bonk at the end of the article:

"Armed militia groups which helped to defeat Gaddafi remain powerful in many parts of the country.

They are better armed and more numerous than Libya's official army, and there have been reports of militias intimidating and carrying out killings against rivals."

On the other hand we know a US Marines special unit was sent out to Libya to "help the Libyan government" so they may be doing something to "give peace a chance" and not just drinking coke in the shade.

In reply to TobyA:



Nice try, but rejecting the superficial derivative explanations of human behaviour with its intrinsic inability to exclude bias, embodied in "politics", or the even more absurd "political science" is not the same as advocating an atomistic ground up explanations of human behaviour.



No, I suppose an international politics wonk is unlikely to be able to imagine what it might entail.



So is theology or alternatively religion, a definitive emergent phenomenon of human tribalism?



Well, in the immortal words of Danny:
"That is an unfortunate political decision. Reflecting these times. "

In reply to Steve John B:

He's making sense to me, he's saying the rioting people aren't representative of the people/countries they're happening in.

In reply to Timmd:

Which country are they representative of then?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Why are a few thousand people doing anything representative of a country? Well unless they are diplomats of course...

In reply to TobyA: If its drones etc that are the real problem why arent there protests after each Afgan death? Sounds implausible to me.

In reply to TobyA:

If you think that only a few thousand people are getting all excited about the US film clip and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, and following your logic I suppose the Danish cartoons too, then either you're as blind as a bat or in a state of total denial

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Why "would I say that anyway" ?

In reply to Christheclimber:


I think he mistook your username as a claim to be the messiah....

In reply to Jimbo W:

Nice one!
My name is Chris and I am a climber and no I am definitely not the messiah.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Der! I didn't get this at first very good indeed.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: 'If you think that only a few thousand people are getting all excited about the US film clip and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, and following your logic I suppose the Danish cartoons too, then either you're as blind as a bat or in a state of total denial '

I think the people getting publically excitable about a film they have never and will never see bear the same relationship to majority of their their country's populations that the participants in the Nuremberg rallies took to Germany's population in the 1930s.

In reply to Christheclimber: 'Christ He Climber' - not *THAT* good. Mildly amusing, perhaps,

In reply to Christheclimber:

'Cos your Christ for chrissakes!

In reply to Christheclimber:

Sorry, someone else has already explained - I thought the name was a joke in fact, I didn't really think you were the Son of God after thinking about the chances for a bit. I'm a bit disappointed though as I was going to ask you how an immortal being could have a son, it's hard to see why he/she would have a reproductive apparatus. Now I'll probably never know

In reply to Christheclimber:

No your just a very naughty boy

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Maybe it's different in Britain, although seeing what's been going on in Pakistan I'd be surprised, but in France we are swamped with tv interviews of "muslims in the street" saying how shocked they are, how they feel it is an insult, an affront and a provocation etc. This is the view expressed by the Rector of the Paris Mosque, who is often the person referred to when a spokesman is required, the Jewish leaders, the CRIF and catholic leaders... The police presence in Paris was very strong and "calls for restraint", were followed. One silly character to called for the editor to be beheaded on internet was traced and arrested... in several places people who tried to hold demonstrations which had been banned were picked up by the police.

So just as in Germany the vast majority of the German people supported Hitler till they realised they would lose the war there's plenty of evidence that many muslims have been convinced that they have something to be pissed off about. Personally I don't think they have, most never read Charlie Hebdo and the daft film hasn't even been finished let alone found it's way to a cinema but they have allowed themselves to be manipulated, just as the Germans were.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Well given, barring a minority, the German people had something between participation, to critical or passive conformism to the rise of national socialism and at best unwittingly helped to facilitate the subsequent monstrous stain on humanity to occur, your analogy wouldn't bode well at all.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Manipulated by who? Lets ask the politics wonk?! TobyA.....

In reply to Jimbo W:

By who? At the first level all those people that think religions have a right (divine right?) to special treatment, that is to be out of bounds for freedom of speech and expression to have a go at them when they do things that others think need denouncing. That was precisely what the front page cartoon on Charlie Hebdo said.

It shows an orthodox Jew pushing an orthodox muslim in a wheelchair - reference to the film "untouchable" which made a big hit this year and they are both saying "You mustn't make fun of us!"

"http://www.charliehebdo.fr/" The link doesn't work any more, it's been hacked!

At other levels there may be all sorts of people who can see an interest in stirring the hornet's nest, dividing people up, in France at least showing muslims in a bad light just was preparing to give them a partial franchise to vote in some elections etc etc. Your guess is as good as mine.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well who actually disseminated this video and provided the necessary translations for to it to evoke the international foci of disquiet?

In reply to MG:

There are loads of protests all the time - the protests/revolution in Yemen that has been going on for over a year has a strong anti-US tinge to it because in part of the drone strikes and particular because Saleh was seen as... well, really, just was such a US stooge. There has been ongoing riots and protests in Pakistan. These ones are because of the film, it wasn't so long ago that it was because of that CIA contractor who shot dead a couple of people in Islamabad who he thought were robbers. There are protest in different cities across Pakistan against drones often. It's just not on the 6 o'clock news because frankly no one here or in the US gives a shit.

Did you read about the ultra attacks on the Egyptian FA offices a few weeks ago? Probably not, because again - not really very interesting to those outside of Egypt (although I'd be surprised that in the same week of the Hillsborough enquiry results, no UK journalists didn't compare it with the Port Said stadium deaths). It was the same groups that came out again against the US embassy.

In reply to Jimbo W: Oh Jimbo, you are in a grumpy mood still!

As to your earlier posts, I keep re-reading them and still don't get what you're actually trying to say. I think you are trying to make some theological point, but I'm afraid I don't get what it is. So please for me, and my fellow plebs, could you spell it out in a more straight forward manner?

In reply to TobyA:

Well I'm still at work, so you're right there.


There was no theological point being made, but there was one question of your view of theology / religion, but hey ho.

In reply to Jimbo W:

Could you re-state it then as I missed it? (I did read one of your later answers on my phone today whilst we were waiting for our sausages to grill on the campfire, so may well have not been reading that closely, in which case I apologise - but I don't remember a question.)

In reply to TobyA:


So it is the fault of the West for supporting dictators and for invading to get rid of dictators?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
>'Christ He Climber' - not *THAT* good. Mildly amusing, perhaps,

I tried writing that joke last night, but as when broken up that way it just doesn't make any sense, I just let Bruce once again reading what he wanted to read rather than what was written slide!

In reply to BigBrother: Nope. Didn't say that at all.

In reply to BigBrother:

Interesting point that. As the West (and hey let's be fair anyone really) did support dictators when it suited and did invade to get rid of dictators when it suited. Some groups saw this as manipulation and trying to gain influence. So really the West has some responsibility to take for it all though by no means all.
I find an interesting comparison in all this is the reactions to "Jerry Springer the Opera" which had a dig at Jesus and got called blasphemous by various churches and was subject to protest. The main difference being not one person as far as I am aware was killed as a result and no theatres got burned down.
Two things strike me 1) the Christian protesters believed that the producers of the opera were a bunch of individuals and not representative of a general anti-Christian move on the part of a government. Even so I doubt that the results would have been much different. 2) The ease with which the current protests moved to violence. Which only serves to give support to a stereo type of intolerance.
In my view the whole thing is gonna blow up some day

In reply to Quarryboy:
Num Num has issued a Fatwa. Ten shillings for the first Ucker to give a Liverpool parking attendant a Chinese burn.

In reply to TobyA:

And you may be relieved to know I also live in another country, one which has experienced riots,

HAVE we Sydney-siders got this straight?

Because on the other side of the Pacific, somewhere in California, some loser has thrown together some kind of amateur internet video insulting your particular god, you think it justifiable to:

•Take over the Sydney CBD.
•Cause willful damage to property.
•Throw rocks at police officers who are doing nothing more than their duty.
•Hold up such ludicrous signs as “Behead all those who insult the prophet.”

We have to ask: Do you have the first clue as to the ramifications of your actions? Do you not understand that the net result of such irresponsible, appalling action is to give ample fuel to every racist in the country to reinforce every bad stereotype they have ever had of you, and that will affect badly the hundreds of thousands of other peaceful and law-abiding Islamic Australians?

In short, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?!

Get this straight, and quickly: some of you may be from countries where this kind of thing is acceptable. But it is NOT acceptable in this country.

In this country you are free to worship whatever god you damn well please. Others are free to worship their gods.

And I am free to say it is all nonsense over imaginary friends.

But you are not free to create the mayhem you did yesterday, simply because you don't like a freaking video!

Racists have said for years, “If you don't like the way we do things here, go back to where you came from.” The net result of your actions yesterday is that – for those people specifically disgracing themselves in the CBD yesterday, not the vast bulk of Islamic Australians – much of the country now feels the same.

Nice work.



http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/an-open-letter-20120915-2...


It must hurt, shooting yourself in the foot like that, what with all your extensive knowledge of what Brits in other countries do and think.

In reply to stroppygob:
I think that says it all in a nutshell.

In reply to stroppygob: Since when has Sydney been "in the UK or anywhere else in Europe"? Bruce pointed out there were some attempts at protests in France but they were policed away seemingly rather efficiently. FWIW, I also never said anything about what "Brits in other countries do and think". So I'm not really sure what you point is.

BTW, have there been any other protests in Australia since the Sydney one? I read there were plans for other cities, but Muslim leaders were reconsidering after the Sydney fighting.

In reply to TobyA:


Actually they're unleaded petrol these days. We've moved on, in some regards, over here

In reply to stroppygob:

Are all atheists, whiteys and Lebanese also idiots? They did afterall do a fair bit of rioting in Sydney a year or two back.

In reply to TobyA:


Quite an amusing remark from someone who has devoted quite a lot of energy slagging off those who do! Remember what you had to say about in these people, for example:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-green-resistance-did-it-and-nato-powers...

Lots of people complain about drones and such like in the West and, until this thread, you have generally made fun of many of them.... Have you been on the road to Damascus or something?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Don't be silly Bruce. My point about Global Research is that most of the stuff they discuss as some great conspiracy - the BBC 'pulling' that film about the FSA (you reyomember the one, it is on NYT's website still and the BBC linked to it when their limited rights to show it ran out) is generally known and knowable for anyone who reads the quality western media, but as ever many people don't have the time to go digging around if they don't actually have a special interest in the issue. Our Glaswegian friend who keeps changing her name has often pointed out that the truth of the Bahraini protests is being hidden from us in comparison to Libya/Syria etc. because UK/US/Fr.(?) support the Bahraini royal family. I half agree with her, in the sense that editorial decision are taken and it was deemed of less interest than other stories for front pages/major TV news broadcasts and you had to look to the inside pages of the good newspapers, or C4 News/Newsnight to read about/see the news from Bahrain.

Did you know about the storming of the Egyptian FA offices by the Alawhey (sp.?) Ultras? I didn't, but when I read up on why football fans/hooligans were protesting at the US embassy, I found those stories and they help give the context of why the "anti-film" protests in Egypt took the form that they did.

In reply to TobyA: BTW did anyone else hear Humphrys debate this issue with the Hizb ut Tahrir bloke on the Today programme yesterday? Just heard it on their podcast. HuT are normally pretty nutty, although this guy was giving a much better impression of reasonableness and I thought Humphrys really didn't land any good punches - the Hizby kept saying all the societies have red-lines on free speech, which is true, so not sure why Humphreys didn't say direct - of course, but why on earth should your religion be beyond a red line?

In reply to TobyA: My point was that nothing but cartoons and films seem to unite Islamic followers to protest all at once. Sure, the are riots and protests all the time but not simultaneously about one event. Hence I dont buy your argument that this is all really about Afghanistan. It seems to me it really is about depicting and mocking Islam.

In reply to MG:

But what's "all at once"? The Pakistani/Bangladeshi protests have only come about AFTER the worldwide coverage of the North African protests. The protests have not been simultaneous at all, it's a rolling process over a number of weeks. How the global (i.e. predominantly western) media reports them is also crucial - there is only now (2 weeks later) some reporting that there were NO protests in Benghazi, it was simply a 'terrorist' attack on the consulate and probably not connected to the film at all, but now that's part of the narrative - the spark that started the protests blah blah bah. The actual truth of what happened its rather secondary to both angry Pakistani Muslims chucking rocks at the Islamabad plod or two fulminating talking heads on Fox or CNN.

Of course the film was the reason given for the protests, but even saying it was the catalyst is pushing it. If you don't consider who came out, when and why (Salafis in Cairo, Salafis in Tunis - both to the right of newly elected governments; football hooligans in Cairo who had been saying for weeks they wanted to take on the police), and why govt.s responded as they did, saying it's simply about mocking Islam isn't seeing the whole picture. I'm not saying that those protesting aren't there for another reason than their anger at the film, nor that many (most?) observant Muslims don't feel their religion is being insulted - but rather that this isn't enough to explain where, why and in what order there have been riots.

I wrote a piece years ago for a Finnish media journal looking at the cartoon protests. It's amazing how similar the path is here in the time it took for this outrage to be created (quite a long time) and the amount of political entrepreneurship involved on all sides in creating the outrage.

I don't think any of that excuses the depraved idiocy of killing people with absolutely no connection to the 'crime' you perceive against you, but if it's not considered you just end up with the sort of "it's just bloody Muslims, innit?" responses, a bit like some of those above. These then are used to justify the sort of bigotry towards British citizens who happen to be Muslim (or often just brown) from the likes of the EDL, people who haven't protested and might not even be particularly outraged.

In reply to TobyA:


+1

In reply to TobyA:


Funny how you manage to turn things inside out, now the muslims are victims! Victims of freedom of the press, so for you islam is incompatible with a free democracy? And those who use this freedom to lampoon things that really need to be lampooned are the guilty ones!

Well at least I am reassured that you didn't really have an experience on the road to Damascus, you are still more or less arguing a similar corner but in a really round about way.

PS. the Charlie Hebdo chronology doesn't fit in with your scenario either, the magazine came out on the 19th of September, the reactions were immediate.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Nice speech by Ghulam Ahmed Bilour. Then Wajid Shamsul Hasan on Sky news to defend the comments.

WTF

E

In reply to Enty:

I also think the President of Pakistan has suggested he's a complete tosser but wtf. Some politicians in Northern Ireland didn't behave much better a couple of decades ago.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/pakistan/12091...

Funny old world isn't it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
If only....we could behead all those critics of radical Islam, the world would be one big happy Ummah?
Let's start with the white, football supporting, lumpenprolitariat scum!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What on earth are you waffling on about man? Besides clearly not being what I said at all, your less pleasant side is coming out once again. You seem quite happy to tar British or French Muslims who have done nothing with the same brush of the extremists in Egypt or Pakistan. You seem to have a lot of difficulty in seeing that not all Muslims think or act in the same way. If that's not bigotry I'm not sure what is. But, hey, some of the the most rabid Islamophobes in the US started off on the Marxist left before ending up on the neocon right, so perhaps it's not a wholly unexpected path.


Errr, yeah. And Chris Stevens died on Sept. 11 the same day as the attacks on the US embassy in Cairo. Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were overtly meant as a response to the violence weren't they?

In reply to TobyA:

While I was about it I tried to look up the chronology of the Libyan attacks and it seems once aging you are mistaken, or being economical with the truth, something which obviously I wouldn't dream of suggesting. The version I find is that there was initially a crowd complaining about the film, more or less unarmed by present day Libyan standard anyway and a little later a heavily armed group arrived and attacked the building (not an embassy as is often said, just a group of houses rented temporarily and not easily defended). These seem to have had a clear plan of attack, used mortars and various tactical tricks to move in quickly, do what they wanted and then get out again. This seems to have been an opportunistic attack and a group which has been guarding a nearby hospital for quite a while has been accused.

It's a bit naughty making statements on the assumption that no one will check them out as if they were gospel, as it were.

You are in good company though, this is the present Republican line of attack against Obama, they claim it was all planned in advance so the present US administration are incompetent for not having seen it coming and taking the necessary measures.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/monde/20120922.FAP8763/des-tactiques-militai...

In French I'm afraid but google will translate for you.

In reply to Enty:


Pakistani politics really does plumb some hideous depths doesn't it? Think it was Maajid Nawaz who said on twitter last night, that you can bet the one thing Pakistani voters won't ask is where the hell he got a spare 100 k from.

In reply to TobyA:

I said I didn't know about Britain, but I could check it up if I wanted but what you say is totally untrue about France. There have bee demos, there would have been more if it wasn't for an extremely heavy police response, but what is more important was the clearly stated attitude of many well known muslims, including the TV leadership. To a man (no women there of course) they condemned the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, called them provocations etc, but also called for calm... That the new law giving foreigners a vote in some elections is being debated at present may have something to do with it.


Yes they were, precisely in reply to this, as the editor has said on several occasions and I posted above on this thread.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes, that was the original reporting, but have you seen: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/13/168415/no-protest-before-benghazi-att...
and more recently, as you allude to, members of he Foreign Affair Committee questioning the sec. of state on this:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-never-anti-american-protest-beng... ?

The reports might be wrong, but at least one eye witness said there were no protests.

Did you see the photos on the night of the attack that went around Twitter? They were very unpleasant showing a dead or dying Stevens being dragged by a crowd of Libyans. Of course it was reported at first as Mogadishu/Falluja redux; 'Muslim rage' at its worse. Some American bloggers even reported an obscure Lebanese news site that claimed he had been raped. Of course a few days later the NYT found a Libyan journalist who had filmed the whole thing and it turned out that the people dragging Steven's body had gone into the building, rescued him and took him to hospital - unfortunately they were too late. But it tends to show that early reporting is often far from accurate.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So every French Muslim has been out rioting then? Oh wait...


...perhaps not then. Some red-lines on free speech/free association though it would seem.


So what's wrong with that?


And so you agree then, this is a self reinforcing political process, played out over weeks and stoked on both sides by people with agendas?

In reply to TobyA:

Charlie Hebdo is a weekly (that's what hebdo means) so the issue reacting to the events over the film came out as soon as they could.

I said that the French muslims as a whole weren't rioting, they rarely do, the last time there were really massive demonstrations was in support of the Algerian FLN in 1961 and in the police repression that resulted several hundreds were killed, many were thrown in the Seine then shot from the bridges, I knew someone who worked at the Renault factory downstream who told me they were fishing bodies out for weeks afterwards... so they "know their place". But as I've said above, twice at least, the problem is not that all muslims have reacted with the extreme violence of those in Pakistan it's that they should nearly all, or a lot of them, before you ask I have no statistics, feel aggrieved, ill treated, provoked and/or insulted.

Only one has actually publicly stated he wanted to kill the editor, but on a similar previous occasion the offices were firebombed... the feeling is that islam should not be treated as they feel it is. They are supported by other religious bigots, Jewish and christian but as far as I know the mass of Jews and christians admit the laws of the republic, freedom of speech and most can probably see the joke. Can you really say that this is the case for the majority of muslims?

As for whether this is a planned conspiracy to create anti-mulsim feeling, normally I'm accused by you of conspiracy theorying, I don't think it seems likely, but even if it was I don't think it matters as obviously it wouldn't work if muslims themselves didn't lend themselves to the procedure... It reminds me of the Name of the Rose when the christian fanatic librarian tried to destroy all the copies of a book which insisted on the value of laughter, too subversive.

The cover cartoon of CH I linked to above puts it better than I can, which is exactly the power that many muslims seem to resent.

In reply to Quarryboy:

When people riot and murder I don't think it should be blamed on a film (stupid, offensive and poorly made it may be).

Don't suggest these people aren't guilty of violence and civil disorder. They are. They have no excuse.

In reply to Quarryboy: I think its a bit rediculous really and then you see the backward f*ckwits burning and stamping on flags. FFS, its a stupid film. I feel like posting my own defamtory pictures of that gayman Mahammed or whatever just to see what happens. These f*ckin dense pillocks need to get a sense of, well, sense. Religion really is a scourge, but some are worse than others. F*ckin Islam, always a victim, perhaps its time for some self reflection amongst its stupid followers otherwise it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

By the way, I feel a similar contempt to all pethetic religions, just slihhly more disgust for Islam.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Look, the tossers who are burning flags and storming embassies are a tiny minority and are only using the film as an excuse to give some infidels a good kicking.

The Islamic extremists' equivalent of starting a fight because someone called their pint a poof.

In reply to TobyA:


You're either beingdisngenuous, or a bit dim.

I said;



You said;


So it was you that wrongly made the assumption I was referring to "riots in the UK or anywhere else in Europe", was it not?




Did you not introduce this irrelevance in reply to my post? Did you not claim to be a Brit living in another country?


I fail to see what relevance or point you are trying to make.

Now then, why not try to debate that which I have actually posted, without your strawman points, and your irrelevance about living in another country or such nonsense.

In reply to Quarryboy: I'll respect people's belief in the sky fairy, if they respect my belief that it's a big joke.

I'll respect their right to conduct themselves in a way that is legal and law abiding, if they respect my right to do so too.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
You finished the second bottle then? :O)

In reply to stroppygob: firstly, your statement just didn't make any sense - there are loads of protests that don't get "slammed down" - protest is after all free speech. Are you against that? I've watched film of the Sydney protest now - as soon as they started breaking the law it appears they got bitten by police dogs and all sprayed with those fire extinguisher sized pepper sprays, so what do you want? Live ammo? So good for the polis, I hope they nicked all trouble makers and they'll get what's coming to them in courts.

You also didn't re-quote:


My point is none of Muslims I know "act out violently and without rational thought" they're generally too busy going to work, taking their kids to school etc. That's my point that there have been few protests and no riots in Europe, hence why tar all Muslims with the same brush? Plenty of European Muslims have said they find the film offensive, but they've got the right to say that haven't they? They haven't been violent or irrational about it. Even looking at Australia, the news reports were of around a hundred protesters - so a fraction of a percent of Muslim Australians I guess.


I'll try and explain it more simply then. TV pictures of the EDL riots were seen around the world, but at least where i live this hasn't led to everyone thinking that ALL British people are knuckle dragging football hooligans trying to fight the police on a Saturday afternoon. This is the leap you are making from a few to all when it comes to 1.5 billion people who just happen to share the the same religion.

In reply to TobyA:


You are of course right the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not interested in these protests or too bothered by a poxy film. But...I don't think pretending this is just a few hot-heads is quite right either. We have (unless this is all mis-reporting too) Pakistani government ministers offering bounties for killing people; deafening silence from the Egyptian government on the matter; and tens of thousands protesting in Nigeria. The net effect, I would judge, if you were an editor thinking of publishing something critical of Islam will be to make you think twice and probably not publish at all unless you are rather brave. In other words free-speech is being effectively prevented by the threat of violence. I think some non-violent and non-provocative response to this would be wise. Government and "the west" generally just re-stating why freedom of expression is considered important and why Islam (or other religions) can't have a special position would be a start.

In reply to MG: 'Pakistani government ministers '... Well one, who's remarks have been disowned.

And as for the reporting of rioting ... we were on holiday in Austria when there were riots in Croydon and so on in 2011, so we heard about them from our continental neighbours who told us what was being reported in their media. To hear them talk it sounded like we weren't going to have a county to go back to, the whole place was descending into anarchy, and some of them even said as much.

Now I am not minimising the significance of the riots but their reporting abroad was out of all proportion. It doesn't take that many rioters to make a foreign country sound like it is descending into chaos.

In reply to MG:

Sounds sensible, but very hard to do. I heard yesterday that the US Embassy in Pakistan has employed a local advertising agency to basically do exactly that - to explain that the US govt. has no say over what films are made, what freedom of speech means etc. although I suspect it will have very little impact - at least they probably won't get their budgeted 60,000 USD worth from it!

But the thing is, the argument is hugely complicated by the fact that "freedom of speech" is a very fuzzy concept and differs hugely in different Western countries. The UK is the place you go to sue for libel because you win stuff here that would get kicked out by the lowest courts in the US on 1st amendment grounds. Yet in the US, broadcasters now take endless amounts of corporate cash to run political adverts because corporations are person and money is speech, but when they show a woman's nipple they get fined 500,000 dollars by the FCC (still being fought over seemingly) and have to settle liability claims for 3.4 million from other law suits brought against them! In Germany you can't deny the holocaust, in France you can't deny the Armenian holocaust, in the UK is it still you can't be catholic and head of state? etc etc.

This guy hasn't been sentenced yet http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19604735 but should he have been found guilty in the first place? If so, what punishment should you get "sending a grossly offensive communication"? Why isn't his view, no matter how loathsome (I reckon I've seen worse), his right to free speech? It was an opinion or hope, not a threat.

In reply to TobyA:


Though relic 300-yr-old laws that would likely be changed were they ever an issue is a bit different from laws actively being promoted today.


No he shouldn't. Nor should the guy who laughed at Muamba, nor the guy who insulted Tom Daley (though this one as only "investigated" not charged), etc, etc.

We should change our laws so that they don't criminalise insults or abusive behaviour, but only criminalise threats of violence or genuine harassment.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Have fun defining that!

In reply to TobyA:


It's not that hard, after all we have anti-stalking laws. Repeatedly approaching or following someone in an abusive or threatening manner would count, as would a sustained pattern of sending malicious communications -- but simple abuse or offensive content would not.

In reply to TobyA:


Which was why it was utterly crass and dumb for the Whitehouse to ring up Google and ask them to remove the film trailer -- since that very much muddies the water on such issues.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Oh I don't know.

Yes people have a right to be insulting but by the same token others have a right to ask that they stop. Further I wonder why You Tube didn't pull the video knowing that it was extremely offensive and would most likely cause a lot of trouble.

Yes people can say more or less what they like but I don't see why others should be expected to help them propagate their poisonous views. If I was running You Tube I wouldn't have wanted that offensive rubbish on my website but the maker of the video is perfectly at liberty to find some other way of publicising it.

In reply to TobyA:

How much is $60000? Probably only one or two bombs, perhaps not even one... money spent this way is unlikely to be wasted more than using it to drop bombs on people, but apart from that I think both you and Rob are wrong in the way you try to minimize the seriousness of all this. You are factually wrong concerning the number of demonstrations all over the world but in any case that is not what it's all about - the fact to consider is what muslims, in general or in a significant number think about the making, not even making, of a video clip or the printing of totally mild cartoons. All, and I insist all, the interviews of muslims, in the street, young and old, shown of French TV said they were upset, shocked or angry about these two events which they would not even have heard of if it hadn't been for those demonstrations, violence etc which did take place. Not one just smiled, or made a joke as any normal person would about a cartoon making fun of the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope or such like. Not one.

There could be reasons such as the TV deliberately showing people that reacted like this, or even that those on the telly were scared to say anything that could get them beaten up when they went home (some French suburbs are very heavy at present on this sort of subject) but for me this would be just as bad... but overall it seems pretty well clear that this corresponds to the views of a significant muslims world wide, including in developed, civilized democracies and the view is in the majority concerning the "leaders".

If this is the case, the existence of a large minority who reject one of the basic rules of democracy, then I'd say that was a serious problem for the future as the trend is not positive - 30 years ago the Life of Brian was made, would it be made today? What is certain is that an equivalent Life of Momo wouldn't, no producer would touch it out of fear for their lives... Is this acceptable?

PS. I won't bother replying to your red-herrings, no one thinks the EDL represents all of Britain, nor that their ideas are mainstream in the general British public etc.

In reply to Quarryboy:

FFS people, its a stupid film.

Like idiots who kill golden eagles in Scotland, Religion, especially the fanatics is a scourge which needs to be removed from society.

Too much corruption, killing, child abuse, war, riots, sectarianism, oppression and hurt caused by this most evil of pastimes.

Why dont people wake up and smell the coffee. Religion is NONSENSE, God doesnt exist, never did, never will. Even if he/she did, judging by much of the old and new testament, they probably wouldnt be very nice. A world without religion would be a far better place.

In reply to Removed User:


Who were they insulting? No living person anyway, they were just making a film with a different interpretation of the historical reality of Mohamed (assuming he existed).

Have you seen the film though, I thought it hadn't even been finished?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

yes, disowned, as in not government policy.

The Pakistan High Commissioner to the UK was on the news yesterday, saying the f*ckwit hadn't broken any laws.

Phew! That's OK then.

Meanwhile a UK minister who got a bit gobby with the fuzz faces calls for his resignation!

Reuters was saying last night that a pakistani cleric had doubled the bounty.

Some Tories have asked May to ban the minister from entering the UK, apparently he's a regular visitor.

In reply to Removed User:


Yes, but a random person asking them to stop is one thing and is entirely ok; the Whitehouse and the President asking them to stop is a very different issue, since the President's acts are inevitably bound up with state authority, and thus this gives the impression that the state is entangled with the decision as to whether this film is disseminated.

In reply to winhill:


Surely the best plan would be to let him in then arrest him for incitement to murder or whatever the offence is called... It's not legal in Britain to off a bounty to kill someone, is it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


There's another thing, which is "why this film?"!? I mean, there must be hundreds of films on the internet that are unpleasant, anti-islamic, promote religious hatred or are outright racist, I'd expect there are quite a few from the more unpleasant facets of our own UK public. So why this film? Well perhaps its because of the way the film was propagated and spread:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/egyptian-outrage-peddler-who-...

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

evidence?

In reply to subalpine: Read my post.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

By saying we would be better off without religion (which is actually not the same as believing in a deity of course - thats a different argument) - is saying that we would be better off without humanity - because religions exhibit just about every trait of humanity.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Anyone in the cabinet with the balls to authorise that?

E

In reply to subalpine:

There can't be any conclusive evidence, even less proof, because no societies exist without religion yet and even if they did it would be pretty certain that there would be all sorts of other differences which might result in one being better than another... so what it amounts to is using a bit of judgement

Personally I think that in different periods of human development some religions may have made a positive contribution to society, bringing it from pure barbarity to, something slightly better, but that nowadays I can't see that it brings anything positive, quite the opposite... and my next best to evidence comes from watching the news and reading the papers.

In reply to GrahamD:

OK, I'll refine my over simplistic generalisation.

My reference is to the Abrahamic faiths, all of which have produced utter barbarity over the centuries in the name of their chosen fable. OK, lets acknowledge the good in these faiths; development of language, art, song and arguably the most beautiful and amazing architecture has been created in the name of God - and Gods if you go back another millennium or two with ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Turkey et al and so on.

Then look at the bad in these faiths; more humans lost to faith or sectarianism than probably any other reason (apart from malaria or other diseases), torture, corruption, sacrifice and suffering of humans and animals (halal meat, despicable) child abuse, suicide bombings, cultural seperatism, war, crusades, murder which still happens today. Lets not forget that the holy books which I loathe actually condone this behaviour.

OK, so religion may have scored a few points in the past but on balance, i think that the worls would have done better without it.

For the sake of honesty though, I have not done any reading on Hinduism or Seikhism although that just seems barking - multi armed elephants and all that and from what I understand, Buddhism isnt about worshiping some fairy story but about inner reflection and the search for the ultimate happiness. My low understanding is that there isnt a deity in sight and the person on whom the religion is based, unlike Mohammed, isnt acting on behalf of some other bigger order.

In reply to Quarryboy:

I should also add to my last post the complete and utter attempt to try to quell critical thinking, the opposition and abuse of science and scientific thinking and the brainwashing of millions of poor souls to steal from them and even worse, to commit mass murder.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Agreed, but my point is that whilst those expensive bombs continue dropping on the tribal areas from the drones, adverts on TV are likely to have only a limited effect.


Have a read of Lynch and see what you think: http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/21/a_funny_thing_happened_on_t...


I've not said how many demonstrations there are, so I'm not sure what I'm factually wrong about. There's a nice little interactive graphic on the Guardian website that has tried to track them though.


Plenty of catholics don't joke about the Pope. Your definition of "normal people" sounds a bit like it means people who agree with you.


I don't think its clear at all, but anyway you should check out the #muslimrage meme on twitter for a long string of jokes about this from mainly Muslims. Of course twitter is going to be predominantly the web-savy middle classes, but like you say with the TV, these things are self selecting.


That's exactly my point - no one does think that (although Matthew Goodwin's recent polling research suggests that actually there is quite widespread support for the policies the EDL supports in the UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/16/voters-support-anti-immigrant-part... although more positively mainly amongst older people). But you seem to think that all Muslims agree with the tiny percent who have protested despite there being no evidence of that.

In reply to Quarryboy: Unfortunately, religious zealots live to have hissy fits about any form of criticism of their chosen religion.

Whether you agree or disagree with the content/subject matter of this film, in the west we have democracy, and freedom of speech, and the minute we let any religious or political opinion, restrict that, then we can no longer call ourselves a democracy.

As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, in her biography of Voltaire - 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'.

In reply to TobyA:


No, by normal people I mean those who don't believe in the supernatural, fairies at the bottom of the garden and such like.


I gave you the evidence I was basing this on in my post, you don't agree so your inbuilt defence system prevented you from reading it to avoid system overload, I suppose.

In reply to Goucho:

I hate it when people quote that. It's nonsense. No-one in their right mind would literally defend to the death the right of someone to whom they are implacably opposed to say hateful and hurtful things. Some people might tut disapprovingly of censorship, but fighting to the death? I think not.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Can you point it out?

In reply to Timmd:

Sorry, I'm afraid you'll have to read my posts yourself.

In reply to TobyA:


If by "agree with" you mean they think that films and cartoons regarding Islam should be subjected to Islamic standards of acceptability and that anything they regard as offensive should be illegal, then there is plenty of evidence that vast swathes of Muslims agree.

Similarly, the evidence shows that vast numbers of Muslims agree with the death penalty for apostasy from Islam, and agree with the stoning of adulterers, etc.

In reply to Timmd: His sample size was all the people who Bruce saw on French telly, Tim. From that we extrapolate to all Muslims everywhere. In some ways he may well be right to the extent if you ask any observant Muslim if they think Mohammed should be mocked and insulted they're almost certain to say no. Of course the real point is how many go from that to attacking embassies, starting riots etc. We can see that's a much smaller figure.

In reply to tony: Is pedantry an online illness on this forum.

It makes the point in the defence of free speech.

The world is full of people who get up every morning, determined to get as offended as possible about as much as possible.

These people should get over themselves.

If Muslims don't like this film, tough shit, don't watch it.

In reply to Goucho:
Yes. You should have had a question mark after 'forum', instead of a full stop.

>
No, it's an overblown piece of nonsense that tries to suggest a) some kind of intellectual position (especially when it's correctly attributed, instead of misattributed to Voltaire himself) and b) some kind of lofty moral stance, which is not suitably matched by action. It's perfectly possible to defend free speech without invoking tosh.

In reply to TobyA:

There you are, you found it after all. What was striking was they didn't show any muslim who said "it's all a storm in a tea cup", or "I couldn't much care", or such like and yet if your theory were true the surely from amongst the great majority who you feel didn't share the views that were expressed they would have at least found one?

Further evidence, again on the tv, a debate last night when an elderly muslim whose exact title I didn't notice kept getting very excited about the provocation, how muslim felt aggressed etc. He claimed he spoke for muslims as a whole in France. Finally reading the comments on many news article on internet seems to be largely polarised by muslims, shocked, under attack against the cartoons (and a lot more) and those who take often a fairly aggressive view in the other direction - plus quite a lot of non-muslim, middle ground "that's life, no need to make such a fuss".

So all in all, using the means we all have of forming an opinion your experience of "what most mulsims think" doesn't seem the same as mine. Maybe Finland is not the best spot to garner the opinion of the "muslims in the street"? About a third of my direct neighbours are muslims, how about yours?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I pointed you to twitter where you can find hundreds. Actually on both US and British radio I have heard Muslims who have said 'just ignore it, it's an obvious provocation' (I wonder if the difference is French Muslims opinions or French media editorial decisions?) but as I _already_ said, you would expect any observant Muslim to say they were offended by it. Going on a TV talk show doesn't seem to be a particularly radical action in response to that offense though, does it? Better than bricking an embassy at any rate.


No Muslim neighbours but four of my class mates who I see daily are Muslim. I talk about these sort of things with my Somali mate in particular - he's observant and politically interested. Currently though he's too knackered to care much because his 2 week old baby isn't sleeping well. The others are pretty unobservant I reckon. My Turkish mate thinks everything is a CIA plot, including amusingly the AKP, but that seems to be a thing with Turks.

To keep with the "from my neighbours to millions" theme, do ask me when you want to know what all Russians think, as I can pop across and ask Aleksy.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Be nice to see muslims remove the passages that dehumanise Non Believers, and kuffar from their so called 'holy writ'. Then we could discuss pandering to their never ending grievance theatre. Even the hard line apologists for Islam,are becoming bored shiltless with demands to respect their violent cult.
Btw
I hope it's nominated for an Oscar!

In reply to dek:Saudi Korans have all sorts of things put in them about Jews and non believers, it's a concern for Muslims who don't agree because they're being printed and distriuted quite widely outside of Saudi Arabia.

In reply to Timmd:
Don't you mean school textbooks?

How many versions of the Koran do you think there are?

In reply to dek: At the last count there were over 346 versions of the Koran, but it depends which Iman's cave you go to as to which version you get taught from.

My favourite is the one containing the passage - 'death to all infidel dogs in the west who own a 1977 yellow Triumph TR7'.

In reply to Quarryboy: Interesting to see the over-reaction of the Greek state and people who complained about a less offensive criticism of the orthodox church:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blasphemy-charge-over-facebook-pasta-page-01481372...

In reply to dek:No I don't mean school textbooks.

There are copies of the Koran comming out of Saudi Arabia which are much less accepting of non believers and Jews, they have passages added which are not in Korans printed either outside of Saudi Arabia or before they started printing these copies, which are destributed to different countries outside of Saudi Arabia, and left in hotel rooms and such places, like you can find Bibles in some hotels.

It's run and funded by the Saudi government with the aim of spreading it's view(s).

In reply to dek:

http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran

Seem's i'm a little out of date. You need to scroll down to Saudi-Endorsed Translations.

In reply to Goucho:

The evil bast*rds!......I'm certain my big red Daimler (bus) is halal though?!

In reply to TobyA:


In France too many said it was a "provocation" but this is where we differ, as for me saying this implies that such lampooning, an age old way by which political debate is stimulated, is something that shouldn't really be allowed, "we'll put up with it but it'll have to stop". They see themselves and their coreligionists as victims of an unreasonable attack. It shows a refusal to accept freedom of speech, of religion (or none at all) and seeks to limit political debate - mentalities that are seriously in contradiction with democratic tradition.

It reminds me of a story told about Napoleon, at a period between wars he still kept very much in touch with British opinion by reading papers brought to him in Paris... he frequently got into a real fury over cartoons making fun of him in the papers of the day - often at least as virulent as today's - and so he summoned the British Ambassador. The embarrassed man could only reply that that was how it was and even King George himself had to accept the jabs of cartoonists. Boney never accepted it, until Waterloo.

This was almost exactly 200 hundred years ago, perhaps muslims should move with the times as the French dictator was forced to back then?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


But it clearly is a provocation. I can see that, I presume you can see that.

I don't see what more you can ask for than people saying "it's an attempt to provoke me, but I'm not going to rise to it". I really think if you presume that response means that 'really' they want to ban freedom of speech, that says more about your views than it does about anyone else's. Of course there are plenty of Muslims who think blasphemy against their religion should be outlawed, but there are defacto millions of others living in Western countries and not engaging in any kind of political activity towards that goal, who clearly don't care.

In reply to TobyA:


The original video was an inane ignorant ineffective attempt at provocation. The reintroduction of a version with subtitles by salafists, promoting the video among salafists, which appears to be the mechanism of its dissemination, was far more effective self provocation. You see its not just about the reaction, its about the instigation which was never about the guy who directed this stupid movie.

In reply to Jimbo W:


I totally agree about the Egyptian salafi TV presenter who brought it to wider attention with the obligatory 'this film is so disgusting I'll... errr... put it on my TV show'. I suppose some rank hypocrisy never hurt anyone's ratings. But the best reporting I've seen so far was that it was possibly the American-Egyptian Morris Sadek who translated the film into Arabic, and he put it on his website and alerted Egyptian journalists, IIRC predominantly writing for Coptic newspapers. I heard an interview with one of those journalists in Egypt who said something along the lines of he knew that the film would cause all sorts problems but it was a scoop, with a 'what can you do?' attitude. It seems that the Salafi TV in Egypt only found out about it after the Egyptian papers reported on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/egyptian-christian-activist-in-virginia...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/17/v-print/168794/coptic-christian-who-p...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I agree that saying it's 'provocation' doesn't prove anything but I can see the point you are trying to make. The thing is 'democratic tradition' is a Western thing, important even perhaps sacred to us, but it might not be the trump card that we see it as for those brought up as devout Muslims in very different cultures.

Taking a wide view I think some stuff like this is perhaps to be expected. We're living through an age where the world is becoming smaller and smaller. Very different cultures are coming together in a way not possible in the past.

The point that most Muslims aren't protesting is perhaps an indication of change, of a growing acceptance of freedom of speech. The protests indicate it's a growth that still has some way to go.

In reply to TobyA:


Well no, the cartoons were most certainly not a provocation. The video clip possibly was intended to provoke, but it could also be said to provoke thought by presenting a version of history quite different to what muslim history teaches. Without having seen the film I can't say whether it was more or less accurate than the standard version, which, obviously, paints Mohamed and his followers in a much more favourable light that they really were. Provoking thought, as much theatre, art in general, often sets out to do is not the same as a deliberate malignant provocation that is implied by fanatical muslims, and funnily your good self, saying simply "it was a provocation!" does.

But that's the unfinished and unpublished film, the cartoons were in no way a provocation, they were in a humoristic magazine, whose stock in trade is a sort of ex 68, schoolboy come anarchist scatological and organ-obsessed smutty humour to titillate the petit bougeoisie and, underneath it all, contribute quite often a valid comment about the more outrageous events that we all see on the news everyday. They go from the pope being sodomised by a bishop to all sorts of perfectly outrageous cartoons depicting the hypocrisy and dishonesty of those who dominate our lives.

The use of cartoons in this way goes back centuries and it's acceptance or refusal is probably a fairly good indication of the level of democracy of a regime - to class such essential tools of public expression as Private Eye, Mad Magazine and, as in this case Charlie Hebdo as weapons of provocation against an entire people, or in this case religious group is pretty far down the road towards calling for tyranny... THEY ARE JUST FOR LAUGHS..... with quite often a smidgen of valid comment in them as well.

In reply to stp:


Is it? Aren't there universal values which all countries at least pay lip service to? The UN charter and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man aren't rejected openly by many countries, as far as I know, even if interpretations and real application of the principles may differ, to put it mildly.

Secondly we are also discussing the reaction of muslims who live in countries which are democracies and have a legal system and traditions which most certainly do demand respect for democracy. Those minorities who refuse this - fascists for example - are at best tolerated by the average person and if they attempt to put their foul beliefs into practice can expect more than just disaproval, and quite rightly so IMO.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Have you not watched the 14 minutes? If not you should, just to see how generous anyone would have to be to call it "art". The lady whose legs George/Mohammed is crawling around under for inadequately explained reasons, does have very nice legs though. That was probably the high point for me.

Quite surprised that anyone interested in this hasn't watched it!

In reply to TobyA:

I was more concerned by the cartoons than the film - I watched a few seconds but couldn't be bothered with the rest. Seriously though, if you'll excuse the expression, does it not astound you that anybody could be offended by such totally crummy video? Of as much interest as a bit of offensive graffiti... As has been said above it's clearly been deliberately blown up to cause trouble - and this time to create a real provocation. The reaction of so many people doesn't exactly reflect well on them either.

If it's true that some Copts were involved that could turn out to be a bit of an own goal too... It's hard not to find humanity depressing these days, both for those who made such a crass video and for the way so many millions have reacted to this triviality.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Do you post on any sites like the BBC Asian network at all Bruce, where you're probably statisically more likely to communicate with a larger number of Muslims?

If you find reacent events depressing and wish to be a part of changing things for the better, it could be worth doing?

It's a genuine question, it's not a way trying to get you to go away.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbasiannetwork/F4154526

Rather than posting where people are largely not Muslim, it might be more interesting to post were there's probably more Muslims to communicate with online.

In reply to Timmd:

My neighbours are muslims, as are several other families in the same street so if I wanted to speak to muslims I could speak to them... But why would I want to speak to people because of their religion? Have you still got the nice lady on her knees praying in the corner of your office? You haven't mentioned her recently.

PS. The muslims in our street haven't run amok lately.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You don't seem to like how many have taken offence, if you came across some online who did/do take offence, you may wish to try and explain why they don't need to is my thinking.

If you just want to grumble on UKC that's fair enough, lots of people do, but if you find it depressing, like you've posted you do, I figured you might want to try and change some people's minds if at all possible.

You don't have anything to lose i'd have thought? Maybe an evening or so on the PC.

In reply to Timmd:
Are you also defending the Christian posters who seem to get a regular slagging?

In reply to dek:

I didn't realise I was defending Muslims by suggesting Bruce post on the BBC Asian Network?

???

In reply to Timmd:

I don't post on any other forums, one's enough.. but do you really think it would help if I posted on a forum specially for muslims? In fact do you think it is healthy to set up forums that are specially for one religion, race or hair colour, for example. It seems an odd idea really.

When the subject comes up I join in, when Palestine comes up I usually chip in too in support of the Palestinians, but not because they are Palestinians and even less because many are muslims, but because they are human being who have been and are being treated shamefully. In a similar way I post in support of the Iranian, Libyan and Syrian peoples to give a few more examples.

Why bother? Because we are all involved, our countries are involved and the way this happens depends on public opinion. I can't do a great deal but discussing such subjects, presenting views can, when magnified millions of times by others doing the same, effect this opinion despite the deluge of media brain washing. Each of us only count for one and I think the best place to discuss is in places, forums, neighbourhoods, family, workplace where we live.

Maybe it's boring you but you don't have to read my posts.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's not a site just for Muslims...

I just thought you might think it productive if you could try and explain to Muslims why they shouldn't get so annoyed at films or cartoons.

'It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness'.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Let me just fix that for you.


There, all good now.

In reply to TobyA:
That's a bit devious isn't it! Bruce has always pointed out his support and sympathy for the 'people' living under those regimes?
The pair of you have been at it for fk knows how many years now?..

In reply to dek:


I hope it was far too obvious to be considered devious, but anyway...


Actually though, you get very much to the heart of what I find so difficult about so many of Bruce's opinions. I would say exactly the opposite, he has shown very little support or sympathy for any of the 'peoples' involved in the Arab spring, but he does support any regime that stands against the US and other Western countries. I've not met anyone else who has been as steadfastly pro-Assad as Bruce has. He's also been quite scathing of the elections that have taken place in the countries where the revolutions succeeded, the people seem to have made the 'wrong' decisions there.

In reply to TobyA:



You rise like a whippet to a lump of lard

In reply to TobyA:


All in your head Toby, not mine. I have never said what you have read, nor thought what you claim I thought in this paragraph.

For the nth time saying Western bombing of Syria is a bad idea is not the same as saying I support the regime, and as for being "scathing" about the elections in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, this is absolutely in your imagination. You have just made this up in your mind as it's what you think "someone like me" would do.. but I haven't.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Suggesting the "election" of Assad just before the war should be taken as an indication of his popular support, claiming that no one should take seriously the more than a year of reports of systemic violence against civilians by govt. forces and permanently demonizing all the forces against him as "al Qaeda" and foreign backed mercenaries is support whether even if you are backing away from your very clear positions now.

You've also belittled the Libyan people's democratic process since the over throw of Gaddafi (who you praised many times, whilst minimising the human rights abuses under his rule).

In reply to TobyA:

Sorry, this is totally untrue... you just read what you want, apparently you're incapable of accepting anything but a gungho lets get'em attitude as support for the regime! You're not looking for a job with Mrs Clinton by any chance?

What you do is translate my saying we don't know for sure who is killing who - as justified by the Arab League report months ago which said that blame was shared and often massacres were invented (hushed up immediately because of this and never renewed), or criticize the massive car bomb attacks killing dozens of civilians as being "support for Assad".

What is worse is that you stubbornly refuse to take into account the danger for the non-Sunnite Syrians should the Sunni side of the civil war win. You turn it into a black and white, goody baddy/conflict and treat any refusal of such simplification as support for Assad... Just like Mrs C hence my query about your future career plans.


Unlike in Syria I think that the Gaddafi regime had a lot going for it, life for most Libyans was objectively pretty good - ask anyone who's spent time there. Under Gaddafi over 40 years there had been some executions and other abuses but often following the numerous assassination attempts on Gaddafi himself and long term regional rivalry but far less than many or most African states. The NATO aggression killed an order of magnitude more though, at least, in a few months, destroyed most of the infra structure, except oil installations, surprise, surprise, and left the country in it's present state of anarchy and mob rule.

Given this I stick to my views for the moment and leave you supporting a oil inspired blood bath.

In reply to TobyA:

Nice one Toby!

In reply to TobyA:
he has shown very little support or sympathy for any of the 'peoples' involved in the Arab spring, but he does support any regime that stands against the US and other Western countries.

Cos Bruce sees history as a progression of regime types. Anti-colonialist is about as high up the scale as you can get, just a step or two away from a socialist utopia

In reply to Stanners:

I agree. But I think you meant 'Portland'?